Wednesday, June 10, 2015

 
NOTHING BORES ME MORE THAN CANDIDATES MAKING FALSE CLAIMS
 
Pat Ahumada is seeking to destroy the reputation of an election judge/clerk - not sure which she is, because she was seen holding a sign endorsing Tony Martinez.
 
Let's put this in context, it was Pat Ahumada as mayor when the voice of the people was silenced at city commission meetings.  Pat Ahumada will never change - you either speak the way he wants you to or you are not allowed to speak - and to boot he will trash you for not complying with his demands.
 
PAT AND BARTON NEED TO AT LEAST PRETEND TO HAVE A MODICUM OF COMMONSENSE
 
According to Pat and Barton, if you agree to be an election clerk/judge during the course of the election you surrender your right to openly support a candidate while not on duty as a judge/clerk.  The chances of such a moronic rule would have zero chance of surviving a First Amendment challenge.
 
Now had they taken the time to actually think this out, they would have sought the woman's schedule and compared it to the time she was politicking - now if she was on duty and outside instead politicking for Tony we might have a problem - but I doubt it.  The goal is to keep them from politicking in the polling area - not outside the 100 foot area, while they are off duty.
 
Now if commonsense does not convince you Pat and Barton are playing the same old game of throwing stones at those overseeing the election, how about considering what a court said on the issue.
 
" Winfield testified that he understood the oath to apply only on election day while he was working in his official capacity as an election judge. He admits soliciting votes for Espinoza, but said he did not do this while serving as election judge.
 
We cannot agree that Winfield was muzzled twenty-four hours a day from the time he first took the oath on March 10, the day of the primary election, through April 14, the day of the primary runoff election. Section 62.003 requires the oath to be taken at the polling place before the polls open; clerks who arrive after the oath is taken must take the oath before performing duties as an election officer."

Click for Alvarez v. Espinosa at 249

Really Jim, knowing Pat shut down public comment on live TV, you are going to consider him a reliable source of Free Speech?

Now, having proven there is no basis for Pat or Barton's complaint - the election/clerk showed about as much commonsense as Pat and Barton.

While the court found there is no code violation if the judge/clerk endorses a candidate while not working, I do believe the following language is important to the issue.

"But perceptions of fairness are also important. The public must have confidence that the election process is fair for all candidates. It is therefore imperative that election officials comply with code procedures.."

So why there is absolutely no basis to Barton or Pat's claim of a violation of the Oath, the clerk nonetheless tainted the appearance of fair elections.

BUT GUYS THIS ENDLESS NONSENSE OF BOGUS CLAIMS AGAINST ELECTION OFFICIALS EVERY ELECTION ONLY DIMINISHES THE PERCEPTION OF FAIRNESS


No comments: